July 27, 1999 -- At 2 a.m., pedestrian Kenneth Cains is killed in a hit-and-run accident involving a Jeep Grand Cherokee in Harrisburg.

July 28, 1999 -- Druce submits a claim to his insurance company for repairs to his state-leased Jeep Grand Cherokee, saying it was damaged in an accident on the Pennsylvania Turnpike. That day, he takes the car to a body shop for $3,000 in repairs.

Aug. 2, 1999 -- Druce trades the Jeep for another state-leased car, even though he still had five months left on the Jeep lease. (Authorities later locate the Jeep in Auburn, N.Y., and find traces of blood and skin.)

Jan. 19, 2000 -- Druce is charged with various offenses in Cains' death, carrying up to 21 years in prison.

March 16, 2000 -- Druce pleads not guilty. He insists he thought he hit a traffic sign in Harrisburg but admits the Turnpike tale was a fib.

Sept. 11, 2000-- Druce pleads guilty before Dauphin County Judge Joseph Kleinfelter to various charges in return for the dropping of a charge of homicide by vehicle. The charges involved in the plea carry sentences of up to 16 years in prison.

Sept. 21, 2000 -- In a news interview, despite the guilty plea, Druce insists he thought he hit a sign.

Sept. 25, 2000 -- Druce resigns from the Pennsylvania House.

Oct. 2, 2000 -- An Associated Press story quotes Judge Kleinfelter as saying that, by pleading guilty to a hit-and-run charge, Druce "admitted that he knew he hit somebody." That was the only direct quote involving the case against Druce that was directly attributed to the judge.

Oct. 9, 2000 -- A defense motion seeks to have Kleinfelter disqualify himself from the Druce case.

June 13, 2001 -- A new AP story says Druce has appealed his sentence to the state Superior Court, claiming that Kleinfelter committed a "flagrant violation" of judicial rules by discussing a pending case, as reflected in the Oct. 2, 2000, story, and his comments represent a "clear appearance of bias and prejudice" against Druce. "In effect, President Judge Kleinfelter publicly declared that he believed Mr. Druce was a liar," the AP quotes the defense as saying.

Personally, I had a rather strong reaction to the claims in the appeal, but I decided to wait until I saw the 52-page document for myself before popping off about it. As it turns out, last week's story left out a few parts.

For example, the appeal talks about how "distinguished" Druce was and makes the argument that the victim was intoxicated at the time of the accident. (The appeal also mentions Druce's early claim that he was home at the time of the accident.)

The appeal says Judge Kleinfelter's public comments "indicate that he believed that Mr. Druce's defense to the charges against him was a lie. But, in fact, Mr. Druce's reported comments were not lies."

Oh, really? Which Druce comments? The Turnpike, the home in bed, or the traffic sign comments?

The appeal also attacks the judge for observing that, by fleeing, Druce "removed therefrom any evidence of his possible intoxication," and the appeal notes there is "absolutely no evidence presented" that Druce was drunk.

To that, we ignorant laymen might say: So what? The judge did not sentence Druce for driving while drunk; he sentenced him on charges to which Druce entered a guilty plea.

On second thought, maybe even a chronology doesn't help us clarify our perspective of the Druce case.